With the recent announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair that the English involvement in the American-led Iraq War was entering its final stages, the question of American involvement in an increasingly unpopular war has once again been brought to the front burner. The fact that the English withdrawal coincides with an increase in the troop deployment in Afghanistan highlights the differences between these two theaters of war. With the exception of the United States, the coalition in relation to the Iraq War is fading. Simultaneously, however, the idea that the war in Afghanistan is a ‘just cause’ and one (in the eyes of the rest of the world) worth fighting for has raised some interesting contradictions.
While the obvious links to the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. should not be understated, I am questioning the relevancy of Afghanistan and its role in relation to American strategic interests. Of course Afghanistan is a hot-bed for terrorist activity and has played host to some of the most infamous international terrorists. But so has Pakistan. I contend that even although a failed Afghanistan would be an annoyance to America and its allies, it would have little more effect than that on the international community. In fact, the overall economic and strategic position of Afghanistan is extremely limited. With the exception of Kabul, the country is almost entirely impoverished and rural. Two-thirds of the Afghan population lives on less than two dollars a day and it is estimated that one-third of its economy is based on the production of poppy seeds.
What exactly are we going to accomplish in this impoverished and isolated country of 30 million? The Soviets found that they were unable to accomplish their mission even without the watchful eyes of the international community. Afghanistan’s limited role in Middle East affairs and its virtually non-existent role in international relations, means that even a successful mission by the international community bears no real fruit.
Conversely, the situation in Iraq necessitates the presence of the international community. As a central figure in the Middle East and a major oil producer, the importance of Iraq far exceeds that of Afghanistan. A failure in Iraq would open the door to a new level of anti-American extremism which would in turn threaten the international community at large. Failure would further strengthen the tyrannical regimes of Iran and Syria and lead to an increased likelihood of a prolonged civil war. The consequences to the international community are profound. By removing themselves from Iraq and increasing their presence in Afghanistan, the English have revealed their true colors. The English and the European Community as a whole are once again in the position of transferring the real responsibility to the Americans.
With the international community fleeing Iraq, but not wanting to look weak on security issues, the conflict in Afghanistan is a relatively safe alternative. Dozens of nations continue to support the American-led Afghanistan war and the overthrow of the Taliban regime. Where are the supporters of the Iraq war? While the international community can clean its hands of the Iraq war and not feel the guilt associated with its failure, the long term consequences are severe. The rise of anti-American, anti-war rhetoric concerning the Iraq war may appease some in the international community, but in the end not only fails to solve the problem, but could potentially reinforce it.
- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Westbrook Sullivan
While the obvious links to the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. should not be understated, I am questioning the relevancy of Afghanistan and its role in relation to American strategic interests. Of course Afghanistan is a hot-bed for terrorist activity and has played host to some of the most infamous international terrorists. But so has Pakistan. I contend that even although a failed Afghanistan would be an annoyance to America and its allies, it would have little more effect than that on the international community. In fact, the overall economic and strategic position of Afghanistan is extremely limited. With the exception of Kabul, the country is almost entirely impoverished and rural. Two-thirds of the Afghan population lives on less than two dollars a day and it is estimated that one-third of its economy is based on the production of poppy seeds.
What exactly are we going to accomplish in this impoverished and isolated country of 30 million? The Soviets found that they were unable to accomplish their mission even without the watchful eyes of the international community. Afghanistan’s limited role in Middle East affairs and its virtually non-existent role in international relations, means that even a successful mission by the international community bears no real fruit.
Conversely, the situation in Iraq necessitates the presence of the international community. As a central figure in the Middle East and a major oil producer, the importance of Iraq far exceeds that of Afghanistan. A failure in Iraq would open the door to a new level of anti-American extremism which would in turn threaten the international community at large. Failure would further strengthen the tyrannical regimes of Iran and Syria and lead to an increased likelihood of a prolonged civil war. The consequences to the international community are profound. By removing themselves from Iraq and increasing their presence in Afghanistan, the English have revealed their true colors. The English and the European Community as a whole are once again in the position of transferring the real responsibility to the Americans.
With the international community fleeing Iraq, but not wanting to look weak on security issues, the conflict in Afghanistan is a relatively safe alternative. Dozens of nations continue to support the American-led Afghanistan war and the overthrow of the Taliban regime. Where are the supporters of the Iraq war? While the international community can clean its hands of the Iraq war and not feel the guilt associated with its failure, the long term consequences are severe. The rise of anti-American, anti-war rhetoric concerning the Iraq war may appease some in the international community, but in the end not only fails to solve the problem, but could potentially reinforce it.
- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Westbrook Sullivan
2 comments:
Thank you very much for a most enlightening article. I fully agree with your analysis. It is much easier to fight a war with no big consequences then to stand in the front line impacting our (the world's) present and future. That is a responsibility that is difficult to assume and only a courageous nation with deeply rooted values is willing to do it.
It is also much easier to reach a consensus about a war with no global impact. The risk is minimal. But if the impact is high, like in Iraq, there will be many nations that prefer not to get involved as it could risk their stake in the Middle East and all the other countries that has an involvement there.
We often forget that the war in Iraq started not only with the goal of removing nuclear armament but also to free an oppressed people. Whether the removal of a tyrant by anybody except an internal revolution is acceptable is a difficult question to answer. A pre-emptive war to remove a threat is on the other hand acceptable, and hence that was the cause used to form an alliance. But things did not work out as planned due to bad intelligence and no planning. But it is not a lost case, and the world should be in Iraq now to help the Iraqi people to restore law and order. It is a terrible act of cowardice to stamp the war as evil and leave America there to carry the burden.
This negative attitude is causing the rise of many negative voices in America as well and that will hamper the activity just when the light at the end of the tunnel is faintly visible.
I completely disagree, the outcome in Afghanistan will have huge global impact, not least because it is a legitimate struggle compared to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Sadly, you are very much incorrect in stating that 'a pre-emptive war to remove a threat is... acceptable'. There is no basis in international law or precedent to support this act of aggression. Far from being a problem of bad intelligence and a lack of planning, the CIA had extensive intelligence that Iraq did not have any form of WMD programme - this was ignored and manipulated by the Bush administration to make a false case for war. The State Department did in fact produce a hugely detailed plan for a post-invasion reconstruction of Iraq, but this was completely ignored by the Administration and never actioned. The problem of a break down of law and order was due to the fact that Rumsfeld ignored the advice of his own military experts, such as General Shinseki, who warned that 300,000 troops (not the 120,000 sent) would be required to uphold the rule of law.
So, I'd suggest you check your facts again before talking about cowardice, negative voices or courageous nations.
Be sure to read my article 'Afghanistan, the Right War', due to be posted next week - I look forward to starting a dialogue ;)
Post a Comment